64th Congress, ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. J Report 

1st Session. \ \ No. 494. 



ALLEGED OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT OF H. SNOWDE^f^ 

MARSHALL. 



April 5, 1916. — ^Ordered to be printed. 



Mr. Webb, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 

following 

REPORT. 

[To accompany H. Res. 193.] 

By direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I beg leave to 
make the following report, in the nature of a statement, to the 
House of Representatives. On the 12th day of January, 1916, Hon. 
Frank Buchanan, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
Illinois, arose, in his responsible position, on the floor of the House 
and impeached H. Snowden Marshall, district attorney for the 
southern district of the State of New York, charging the said 
H. Snowden Marshall with numerous malfeasances and misfeasances 
and with corrupt and improper behavior and conduct in office. 
Immediately after the reading of said charges. Representative 
Buchanan offered for the immediate consideration of the House 
resolution 90, which provided, among other things, "that the Com- 
mittee on the Judiciary be directed to inquire and report whether the 
action of this House is necessary concerning the alleged official mis- 
conduct of H. Snowden Marshall," etc. After debate on the resolu- 
tion, the House, upon motion of Mr. Fitzgerald, of New York, referred 
the resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary for its consideration 
and action. 

The Committee on the Judiciary immediately began the considera- 
tion of said resolution and called Representative Buchanan before it 
to make such statement and furnish such information concerning the 
truth of his impeachment charges, as set out in House resolution 90, 
as he was able to make and furnish. Thereafter, on the 27th day of 
January, 1916, by direction of the Judiciary Committee, the chairman 
thereof offered in the House of Representatives the following resolu- 
tion: 

House resolution 110. 

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary in continuing their consideration of 
House resolution 90 be authorized and empowered to send for persons and papers, 
to subpoena witnesses, to administer oaths to such witnesses, and take their testimony. 



2 ALLEGED OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT OF H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

The said committee is also authorized to appoint a subcommittee to act for and on 
behalf of the whole committee wherever it may be deemed advisable to take testi- 
mony for said committee. In case such subcommittee is appointed, it shall have 
the same powers in respect to obtaining testimony as are herein given to the Committee 
on the Judiciary, with a sergeant at arms, by himself or deputy, who shall attend 
the sittings of such subcommittee and serve the process of same. 

In case the Committee on the Judiciary or a subcommittee thereof deems it necessary 
it may employ such clerks and stenograi^hers as are required to carry out the authority 
given in this resolution, and the expenses so incurred shall be paid out of the contin- 
gent fund of the House. 

The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall have authority to sign, and the 
clerk thereof to attest, subpoenas for witnesses, and the Sergeant at Arms or a deputy 
shall serve them. ., X^ -./^ ,^ ^ 

The said resolutioli was on said date unanimously agreed to. 

While further considering the said House resolution 90 and the 
said House resolution 110, on the 31st day of January, 1916, the 
Committee on the Judiciary authorized the chairman to appoint a 
subcommittee of three to execute the purposes of House resolution 
110 to act for and on behalf of the fuU committee wherever it may be 
deemed advisable to take testimony for said committee, and on Feb- 
ruary 1, 1916, the chairman appointed Messrs. Charles C. Carlin, 
Warren Gard, and John M. Nelson as members of such subcommittee. 

Thereafter the said subcommittee organized and heard the testi- 
mony of certain witnesses in the Judiciary Committee rooms in the 
city of Washington. The subcommittee determined, for its further 
information and in carrying out the duties assigned it under the 
resolution of the House of Representatives, that it should hear the 
testimony of certain other witnesses in the city of New York, and on 
the 28th day of February, 1916, the said subcommittee, under sub- 
poenas duly signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
and attested by the clerk thereof, caused certain witnesses to be 
brought before it, in the Federal post-ofhce building in the city of 
New York, and continued the examination of witnesses upon said 
charges up to and including the 4th day of March, 1916. 

On the 3d day of March, 1916, there appeared in a New York 
newspaper an article containing, among other things, the following 
language : 

It is the belief in the district attorney's office that the real aim of the Congress in- 
vestigation is to put a stop to the criminal investigation of the pro-German partisans. 

On the 3d of March, 1916, the subcommittee called before it one, 
Leonard R. Holme, who testified to the subcommittee that he wrote 
the article containing the foregoing language, but when asked 
whether or not he conferred with anybody in the district attorney's 
office before the article was written replied that he declined to give 
the source of his information. The chairman of the subcommittee 
then propounded this question to the witness, ''Did you confer with 
Mr. Marshall before you wrote this article?" To which the witness 
replied, "I respectfully decline to answer the question, sir." The 
chairman of the subcommittee then propounded the following ques- 
tion to him, ''Did you confer with anybody in Mr. Marshall's office ?" 
To which the witness replied, "I respectfully decline to answer that 
question, sir." 

Whereupon, the sergeant at arms was directed by the chairman 
of the subcommittee to take charge of the witness and keep him in 
custody until the further order of the committee. At 4.10 o'clock 

D. o.f D. 
APR 15 1916 



-\ 



ALLEGED OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT OF H. SiSTOWDEN MARSHALL. 



-p. m. of the same day, the chairman of the subcommittee again pro- 
pounded the foregoing questions to Witness Hohne, and the following 
proceedings were had : 

J Mr. Carlin. Mr. Holme, the committee has directed me to order you to answer 
/ question which was asked you. Mr. Stenographer, read the testimony of Mr. Holme. 

(The entire previous testimony of Mr. Holme was read to the committee by the 
stenographer in the hearing of the committee only.) 

Mr. Carlin. Mr. Holme, I hand you this article in the sixth column of page 4 of 
the New York Times, dated Friday, March 3, 1916. The article is headed "Marshall 
refuses Buchanan evidence." I now call your attention to this paragraph of the 
article : 

"It is the belief in the district attorney's office that the real aim of the Congress 
investigation is to put a stop to the criminal investigation of the pro-German partisans. ' ' 

I ask you from whom you got that information? 

Mr. Holme. That information, sir, is a deduction. I have known at the time 
these proceedings were begun in Washington, it was before the indictment of Con- 
gressman Buchanan, that there had been a considerable amount of talk around this 
building as to their nature. I am down here practically every day of my life, and I 
meet with a great many men who are connected with the district attorney's office and 
who are in this building in various other regular capacities, and I based that para- 
graph entirely upon my knowledge of the general gossip around the building and the 
general feeling in the building. 

Mr. Carlin. Why did you not state that, instead of saying it is the belief in the 
district attorney's office? 

Mr. Holme. Well, sir, it comes to much the same thing, does it not? The district 
attorney's office is a large organization. 

Mr. Carlin. Is that your answer? 

Mr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

Ml-. Carlin. Did you base that part of the article upon a conference held with 
H. Snowden Marshall or any subordinate of his in the district attorney's office? 

Mr. Holme. I based that article on my general knowledge of the conditions sur- 
rounding this proceeding and the general opinion floating around the building. 

Mr. Carlin. You state that it is the general belief in the district attorney's office. 
Now, who in the district attorney's office expressed that belief? 

Mr. Holme. I don't think I could give you any definite names, because I have 
discussed this matter with a large number of different people at various times. 

Mr. Carlin. As a matter of fact, did anybody in the district attorney's office express 
that belief? 

Mr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Carlin. Who? 

Mr. Holme. I can only remember a very few, and I respectfully decline, as a 
newspaper man, to express their opinions, which are often given to me in general 
conversation. 

Mr. Carlin. Was the belief expressed by Mr. Marshall or either of his assistants? 

Mr. Holme. I respectfully decline to answer, sir. 

Mr. Carlin. Mr. Stenographer, insert in the record this article which I hand you, 
and the date line of the paper. 

Mr. Gard. I understand you to say, Mr. Holme, that this extract which has been 
read to you was written by you? 

Mr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Gard. And the extract is this: 

"It is the belief of the district attorney's office that the real aim of the congressional 
investigation is to put a stop to the criminal investigation of the pro-German parti- 
sans." 

You wrote that? 

Mr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Gard. And I understand also that you decline and refuse to answer questions 
as to whether you obtained that information from anyone in the district attorney's 
office of the southern district of New York? 

Mr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Gard. You decline to answer that? 

Mr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Carlin. Now, then, Mr. Holme, I am directed by the committee to order you 
to answer that. Do you still decline? 

Mr. Holme. I do, respectfully, sir. 



4 ALLEGED OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT OF H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

Mr. Carlin. Then, I am directed to say to you, for the record, that this committee 
determines you to be in contempt of the order of the committee and of the House of 
Representatives of the Congress of the United States, and that for the present you will 
be released from the custody of the marshal until the committee, if it sees proper, shall 
proceed in the manner prescribed by statute in such cases. We want to be kind to you. 
We have no desire to be harsh with you. We realize to some extent your embarrass- 
ment. We have a duty to discharge, and we think under the circumstances we will 
discharge it in this way and release you from the custody of the Sergeant at Arms of the 
House. 

On Saturday, the 4th day of March, 1916, the said H. Snowden 
Marshall, as district attorney for the southern district of New York, 
caused to be transmitted to C. C. Carlin, chairman of said subcom- 
mittee, then in the performance of its duties, as required by the 
House of Representatives, the following letter: 

Department of Justice, 
United States Attorney's Office, 

Ntv) York, March 4, 1916. 

Sir: Yesterday afternoon, as I am informed, your honorable committee ordered the 
arrest of Mr. L. R. Holme, a representative of a newspaper which had published an 
article at wliich you took offense. The unfortunate gentleman of the press was placed 
in custody under your orders. He was taken to the United States marshal to be placed 
in confinement ( I do not understand whether his sentence was to be one day or a dozen 
years). The marshal very properly declined to receive the prisoner. This left you 
at a loss, and I am advised that you tried to work your way out of the awkward situation 
by having Mr. Holme brought back and telling him that you were disposed to be 
"kind " to him and then discharged him for the purpose of avoiding unpleasant conse- 
quences to yourselves. 

You are exploiting charges against me of oppressive conduct toward a member of 
your honorable body who is charged with a violation of law and of oppressive conduct 
on my part toward shysters in the blackmailing and bankruptcy business. 

I may be able tolighten your labors by offering to resign if you can indicate anything 
I ever did that remotely approximates the lawless tyranny of your order of arrest of 
Mr. Holme. 

The supposed justification of your order that Mr. Holme be placed in custody was 
his refusal to answer tlae question you asked as to where he got the information on 
which was based the article which displeased you. 

It is not necessary for you to place anyone under arrest in order to get the answers 
to the question which you asked Mr. Holme, because I can and will answer it. I 
gave Mr. Holme information, part of wliich he published and from which he made 
deductions, so that if your honorable committee has a grievance it is against me and 
not against him. 

What I told him was about as follows: 

I said that your expedition to tliis town was not an investigation conducted in good 
faith, but was a deliberate effort to intimidate any district attorney who had the 
temerity to present charges against one of your honorable body. 

I said that your whole proceeding here was irregular and extraordinary; that 1 
had never heard of such conduct of an impeachment proceeding; that charges of this 
sort were not usually heard in public until the House of Representatives had considered 
them and were willing to stand back of them. 

I pointed out to him that you, contrary to usual practice, had come here and had 
held pu-bKc hearings; that among your witnesses you had invited every rogue that 
you could lay your hands on to come before you and blackguard and slander me and 
my assistants under the full privilege of testifying before a congressional committee. 

I told him that you had called one of my junior assistants before you and had 
attempted to make it publicly appear that his refusal to answer your questions as to 
what occurred in the grand jury room in the Buchanan case was due solely to my 
orders. I said that at the time you attempted to convey this public impression you 
knew that it was misleading because I had been asked by you to produce the minutes 
of the grand jury and had been instructed by the Attorney General not to comply 
with your request, as you well knew. I showed him the telegram of the Attorney 
General to me and showed him a copy of my letter to you, dated February 29, 1916, 
in which I sent you a copy of the telegram of the Attorney General instructing me 
not to give you the grand jury minutes. 

I told him that you were traveling around in your alleged investigation of me with 
Buchanan's counsel, Walsh and David Slade, in constant conference with you. I 



ALLEGED OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT OF H. SFOWDEN" MAKSHALL. 5 

said that I believed that every word of the evidence, whether in so-called secret 
sessions or not, had been placed at the disposal of these worthies, and that I would be 
just as willing to give the grand jury minutes to a defendant as to give them to your 
honorable subcommittee. 

I told him that I did not share the views which seemed to prevail in your subcom- 
mittee on this subject. I said that I regarded a Member of Congress who would take 
money for an unlawful purpose from any foreign agent as a traitor, and that it was a 
great pity that such a person could only be indicted under the Sherman law, which 
carries only one year in jail as punishment. 

I said that it was incomprehensible to me how your honorable subcommittee should 
rush to the assistance of an indicted defendant; how you had apparently resolved to 
prevent prosecution by causing the district attorney in charge to be publicly slandered . 

I told him that I would not permit the prosecution of the persons whose cause you 
had apparently espoused to be impeded by you; I said that if you wanted theminutes 
of the grand jury in any case, you would not get them as long as I remained in office. 

You will observe from the foregoing statement that what Mr. Holme published may 
have been based on what I said. If you have any quarrel, it is with me, and not with 
him. 

It is amazing to me to think that you supposed that I did not understand what you 
have been attempting to do during your visit here. I realized that your effort was to 
ruin me and my office by publishing with your full approval the complaints of various 
persons who have run afoul of the criminal law under my administration. Your 
subcommittee has endeavored by insulting questions to my assistants and others, by 
giving publicity and countenance to the charges of rascals and by refusing to listen 
to the truth and refusing to examine public records to which your attention was 
directed, to publicly disgrace me and my office. 

I propose to make this letter public. 
Respectfully, 

II. Snowden Marshall, 

United States Attorney. 

Hon. C. 0. Garlin, 

Chairman Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee 

of the House of Representatives, 

323 Federal Building, Nev: York, N. Y. 

At the same time or before this letter was sent to the subcom- 
mittee, it was given to the newspapers and pubhshed by them. 

On the 9th day of March, 1916, the subcommittee aforesaid, 
through its chairman, Hon. C. C. Carlin, submitted to the Committee 
on the Judiciary the foregoing letter of H. Snowden Marshall. 

On or about the 11th day of March, 1916, the following letter was 
received by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and im- 
mediately laid before the full committee: 

Department of Justice, 
United States Attorney's Office, 

New York, March 10, 1916. 

Dear Sir: Referring to my letter of March 4, addressed to the chairman of the sub- 
committee which has recently taken testimony in New York concerning my adminis- 
tration of my office, I notice from the press that some persons appear to have construed 
my statements as directed toward your honorable committee as a whole. I beg to 
advise you that the criticisms in that letter were addressed to the methods pursued 
by the subcommittee. I do not retract nor modify any of those criticisms. But 1 did 
not intend (nor do I think my letter should be so construed) to reflect m any way upon 
the Judiciary Committee, nor did I question the power of the House of Representatives 
to order such an investigation. 

If you and the other members of your committee, for whom 1 have higH respect, 
have gained the impression that my letter carried any personal reflection upon your 
honorable committee, it gives me pleasure to assure you that I had no such purpose. 

Respectfully, „ „ 

^ H. Snowden Marshall. 

Hon. Edwin Y. Webb, 

Chairmanof the Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives. Washington,!), t. 



6 ALLEGED OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT OF H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

The Judiciary Committee has carefully considered said letters in 
the light of congressional and judicial precedents as touching the 
prerogatives of the House of Representatives and its Members, and 
the committee has come to the determination that said letters, their 
publication and attendant circumstances, are of such nature, that 
they should be called to the attention of the House. For obvious 
reasons the committee deems it advisable to take this step rather than 
to report directly upon the facts and the law in the case. I am, 
therefore, directed by the committee to report the whole matter to the 
House of Representatives, with the recommendation that a select 
committee of five be appointed by the Speaker to report upon the 
facts in this case; the violations, if any, of the privileges of the House 
or the Committee on the Judiciary or the subcommittee thereof ; the 
power of the House to punish for contempt; and the procedure in 
contempt proceedings, to the end that the privileges of the House 
shall be maintained and the rights of the Members protected in the 
performance of their official duties. 

O - 



MJ 



y^i 



^^•S 



-•v^-^ 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




012 184 186 1 Q 



Hollinger 
pH8. 



